A.M. Links: Four Dead in Shooting at Fort Hood, Senate Committee Voting on Bush-Era Torture Report, Aliens Wouldn't Surprise Bill Clinton


  • what kind of a probe?
    Weekly World News

    A shooting at Fort Hood left four dead, including the gunman, and 16 injured. The shooter was identified as Ivan Lopez, an Iraq war veteran reported to have mental health problems.

  • The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), is voting today on whether to declassify part of its report on the CIA's Bush-era interrogation techniques.
  • The former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf may have been the target of an assassination attempt. A bomb exploded along the route on which Musharraf, who is in government custody on charges of treason, was being transferred.
  • The son of former Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev, an American citizen, says Russia will never return Crimea and that his father transferred the region to Ukraine only for "logistical" and "symbolic" reasons.
  • Bill Clinton told Jimmy Kimmel last night he wouldn't be surprised if aliens visit Earth one day.
  • Courtney Love insists a musical about Kurt Cobain is "very likely to happen."

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to yousign up here.

NEXT: Andrew Napolitano on the Threat of Government Secrecy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Bill Clinton told Jimmy Kimmel last night he wouldn’t be surprised if aliens visit Earth one day.

    “I did not have sexual relations with that Orion slave girl.”

    1. Hello.

      Clinton: An alien sodomized me and it felt great!

    2. Well, it probably depends on what the definition of gladnorp is.

  2. Warty Hugeman and The Doomcock of Doom

    Chapter Nine

    Warty managed to turn his head enough to see where the ape-man had landed. He had hit him with so much electricity, Steve Smith’s heart should have boiled in his chest, his eyes should have burst and what he used for a brain should have been reduced to bubbling goo. The creature was still alive, somehow; his chest heaved with breaths that howled in and out of his gaping maw and his rough hands grasped at things unseen. Steve Smith looked like he was merely having a nap.

    Warty’s body was flooded with relief when the polite tone sounded and the suit began to reboot. When he could move his arms, he reached for the projectile pistol. It was gone. So much for putting a few rounds into Steve Smith’s face.

    Warty had seen the natives overhead a few times, but they keep their distance as he struggled to his feet. Steve Smith yawned and stretched like a grotesque house cat. Warty was down in a defensive crouch as the beast rose. The Time Axe crackled as he lifted it.


    “Steve? Is your grammar getting better?”

    Continue reading

    1. Dammit. The suit reboots? This should have been first.

    2. Ape-men–the go-to minion in pulp science fiction. Bravo, sir, bravo.

    3. Is this the end of Warty?
      Tune in tomorrow, same rape time, same rape channel.

      1. The thrilling conclusion of Warty Hugeman and The Doomcock of Doom will be released next Monday.

        1. you tease!

          1. It’s not done yet. I’m having a hard time letting go.

            1. Like true Detective or Fringe, I’m waiting for the whole season to be done before starting. SO NO SPOILERS.

              1. The part when Warty (The Prince Who Was Promised) shot his own father with a speargun as he was on the toilet… never saw it coming, especially after the dread events of the Reddest Wedding.

  3. The shooter was identified as Ivan Lopez…

    Ivan Lopez??? The unholy combination of Russky and Mexican! Talk radio, start your engines.

    1. With any luck, his middle name is Hussein.

      1. With any luck, his middle name is Hussein.

        Old radio in shirke’s basement explodes

    2. Russian and *Cuban* methinks!

    1. +1 Timex

    2. Right next to the garlic?

  4. A shooting at Fort Hood left four dead, including the gunman

    Hey, what happened to the headlines about the missing malaysian airliner?

    1. Next they’re gonna report Lou Reed is dead.

      1. Lou Reed is dead? Were the Cleveland Browns his pallbearers?

        1. No, the Golden Girls were the pallbearers. Not to sugarcoat it, but some of the Golden Girls are in less than nominal health.

  5. Medieval poop barrels discovered in Denmark; still smell

    Preliminary results of analysis show that raspberries were popular in Odense in the 1300s. The contents also contain small pieces of moss, leather and fabric which were used as toilet paper,” Lauridsen said. We are finding new and exciting information about the life that was lived in Odense during the 14th century.”

    1. Medieval poop barrels

      Nice band name.

      1. Nice baby name

        1. Bonus points for accuracy.

    2. We are finding new and exciting information

      haha! Nothing says that like poop.

    3. Isn’t the first new and exciting information we need to know about life in Odense is why they stored poop in barrels?

      1. it gets better as it ages?

      2. They were huffing it.

  6. The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), is voting today on whether to declassify part of its report on the CIA’s Bush-era interrogation techniques.

    Is there a “compelling Government interest” in so doing?

    1. The mid-terms are coming up and the Dems need to look better on something in comparison.

      1. Yeah, I suppose it’s easier than repealing Democratcare.

    2. The Obama-era interrogation tactics and assassinations will remain safely classified.

      1. Which are identical to the Bush era tactics.

  7. The son of former Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev, an American citizen, says Russia will never return Crimea and that his father transferred the region to Ukraine only for “logistical” and “symbolic” reasons.

    Even though the region manufactured the best shoe gavels.

      1. HHH?

    1. Dad was the leader of the Soviet Union, and son ends up an American citizen? That’s kind of f’ed up. And amazing. All at the same time.

      1. Almost as if there was a Defect somewhere.

      2. Stalin’s daughter was a US citizen for a while as well.

  8. US secretly created ‘Cuban Twitter’ to stir unrest

    McSpedon didn’t work for the CIA. This was a program paid for and run by the U.S. Agency for International Development, best known for overseeing billions of dollars in U.S. humanitarian aid.

    According to documents obtained by The Associated Press and multiple interviews with people involved in the project, the plan was to develop a bare-bones “Cuban Twitter,” using cellphone text messaging to evade Cuba’s strict control of information and its stranglehold restrictions over the Internet. In a play on Twitter, it was called ZunZuneo ? slang for a Cuban hummingbird’s tweet.

    1. We can only hope so. It would be about the only smart thing the CIA has ever done.

  9. Today in the Obama Administration tells you that you are so stupid you will believe anything. “IRS Chief, No targeting of Tea Party, just use if inappropriate criteria.” That is literally the same thing as a police department accused of racial profiling denying it by saying “we didn’t profile black people, we just used the inappropriate criteria of only pulling over people with afros or dark skin pigmentation.”


    1. It’s outrageous. These fuckers have no shame at all.

    2. They really do think everyone is that stupid. And the media will happily go along with it.

      1. In fairness, most of the media really is that stupid. The rest of us? Well that remains to be seen.

        1. Curious to see how aggressive a GOP Congress will be in investigating all of these scandals. The media will hound them for being racists, etc.–will that deter them?

          1. I have no reason to believe that the GOP is in the process of growing a set. In all likelihood they’ll huff and puff like they always do and that will be the end of it.

          2. Since the GOP are a bunch of pussies, yes, it will deter them.

          3. It has so far.

          4. A GOP Congress won’t because they will be in power and just like their idiot friends across the aisle that’s all they care about. It is always all about power. If they were to investigate and find abuses of power then it could mean that their own power could be diminished as well, not to mention their “legitamcy”.

            1. I suspect this will be more true than not. However, I also think they’ll pick one of these scandals to focus on, since they may very well have the power to remove officials come 2017 (doubt seriously they’d go after the president without him shooting fifty people on television).

              1. The officials and bureaucrats at the head of these agencies should be impeached if the Justice Department won’t prosecute.

                It’s a joke. The governemtn has become one giant backscratching circle jerk, where the elected officials do everything to stay in power, the bureaucrats do everything to get as much money from the HoR as possible, and everyone has become unaccountable.

                What good are checks and balances when no one does any checking on anyone else, and no one even attempts any balancing? They’ve all abdicated thier responsibilities to the sovereign citizens in order to grab and keep as much power for themselves.

                The proggies have won in that regard.

        2. +1 Beat me to it.

    3. Fake. Scandal.

      Thats all it is. Yep.

  10. Kirsten Powers: Yoga pants are not a civil right

    This is what feminism has come to: fighting for the right to wear yoga pants and leggings to middle school. This pressing civil rights issue made headlines when girls in Evanston, Ill., protested rules that they said banned the bum-hugging clothing for creating classroom distractions.

    A feminist flash mob attacked Haven Middle School for shaming girls and promoting rape culture. Eliana Dockterman wrote in Time that the school’s argument “is not that distant from the arguments made by those who accuse rape victims of asking to be assaulted by dressing a certain way.”

    1. Male middleschool teachers led the protest against the ban.

    2. Needless to say, the sisterhood was not sated. Feminist website Jezebel asked why “the solution is to make girls cover up instead of ? teaching boys to not be gross sexist pigs?” This echoed Dockterman’s complaint that “we tell women to cover themselves … but we neglect to tell the boys to look at something else.”

      I suggest the boys be allowed to wear codpieces.

      1. Yeah, it’s totally reasonable to expect 13 year old boys not to notice girl’s butts.

        1. To be fair, I seriously doubt they have any understanding of anything male, let alone the psyche of the adolescent male.

          1. True, their level of understanding is something along the lines that any specifically male behavior is deviant, and little boys must be drugged/shamed/disciplined to make them behave more like girls.

          2. Exactly. 13 year old guys are Male Gazing just about everything. The cafeteria lady, the silhouette on the girls’ bathroom, etc. etc.

            This is also the reason that a woman will never invent mind reading technology. Every time she tests it on a male subject, she wouldn’t believe the results:

            Woman Inventor: Hmmm, the machine says you are thinking about ass fucking my right now.
            Test Subject: What?! No, that isn’t true at all.
            Woman Inventor: Yeah, that is crazy. Back to the drawing board.

            1. At that age, pretty much any sexually mature female was a potential object of my male gaze.

      2. I never got this “don’t look at my butt” bullshit. You’re in a public place, I’m going to look at your butt if I want to. Maybe I’ll be nice and try not to look if you want, but I’m in no way obligated to avert my eyes from your butt.

    3. I have noticed more young ladies wearing spandex or whatever it is called. I don’t see the appeal. It looks sloppy and lazy. Now if you want to get my attention you should be wearing jean shorts cut waaaay too short, ala Brittany Daniels in Joe Dirt.

      1. I agree about the leggings. It just looks like you forgot to finish dressing. Put on a skirt and they look fine.

        Yoga pants, on the other hand, are a wonderful thing.

        1. I think you haven’t seen the right woman yet who has “forgot to finish dressing.”

          1. He has a point, there is a difference between looking hot in some yoga pants and looking like you just rolled out of bed and haven’t bothered to look in a mirror.

              1. Damn, that looks just like my wife from behind. Yum.

          2. I get the idea, show off your curves, but it looks lazy. Maybe because it doesn’t get cold here is why I don’t get it. Girls that want to show their butt and legs off wear shorts. As far as school dress code goes, I don’t care, your kid is in a government skewl, get use to the obeyz.

            1. Not all of us can live in Florida, Florida Man.*

              *Although I wouldn’t mind living there.

              1. No state income tax and they just cut 400 million in car fees. You can get a nice house for 150k or farm land for 1800-2500 an acre. I need some friends of liberty to balance out the progs from the NE moving here.

                1. There is an older CPA in my office who has purchased property on Amelia Island. He keeps telling me he would sell me part of the property to build my own place.

                  I can’t tell if he is serious or not, but I am very jealous of the land he has.

                  1. Wow. Amelia is super nice. I’m from the poor side of Jacksonville and always heard tales of the elites of Amelia. Plus if you are into cars, they do a classic car show there every year.

                    1. My in-laws just sold their place on Amelia. Bummer. Yes, the Concourse D’Elegance (or whatever it’s called) is very cool.

                  2. Amelia Island? I would be packing my stuff right now.
                    If you build, build out of concrete. Get a generator. That is a bad hurricane area.

                    1. Well, I would need something to do there and sell my MD house first, so a little hard to get up and go.

          3. I’m not saying I don’t enjoy the show if it is a good one. Just that it looks silly and lazy. Like a much more (potentially) appealing version of sweatpants.
            I like to see girls in bikinis too, but that doesn’t mean I think they should wear them to work everyday.

    4. Why should they have to wear pants at all? Said every boy at the school.

    5. One wonders what the feminists would think if teenage boys wore body-hugging outfits that showed off massive genitalia.

    6. How does telling girls to dress modestly “promote the rape culture”? I thought porn, you know showing women naked and such, promoted the rape culture. I seem to remember a lot of feminists claiming porn causes rape.

      1. A non-member of the unelected feminist judiciary telling girls to do anything promotes one of the following:

        Rape culture
        Unequal pay

      2. It’s rape culture all the way down.

      3. Feminists want males to have Victorian prudishness while females can be half naked exhibitionists. It is not a reasonable desire.

        1. Feminism is not reasonable.

          1. “You just don’t get it!”

        2. I engage in reflexive Jezebel-hating too, but this is a pretty poor analysis of how most women (and yes, many feminists)see things. I don’t want men to be prudish. I expect behavior to reflect context. For example, I have no problem with men staring at me, or commenting on my appearance, or what have you, when I’m at work — at a strip club, where it’s contextually appropriate. But if I’m in a professional setting, I wouldn’t want my colleague making passes at me in the office or spending meetings staring down my shirt. If I find somebody attractive, my behavior toward them is still modulated by environmental and social cues. As nuts as the feminist bloggers are, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been on the receiving end of behavior that made me say, “what the fuck?” because it showed a total disregard for decorum. Yes, this particular story is ridiculous, but that’s because the behavior it described was so trivial and the actors were adolescents. That’s not always the case.

          1. Yeah, I think it’s important for us menz to remember, in the context of these discussions, that decorum is bidirectional: it is bad decorum for women to wear provocative clothes in certain situations, and it is bad decorum for men to make passes at them in those same situations, regardless of what they actually end up wearing.

            Whereas in a nightclub both are appropriate.

            Or at least, that’s what my decidedly non-feminist mother brought me up to believe.

          2. I went to private schools with fairly strict uniform requirements. My tendency is to think that if you require the kids to dress seriously for school, you will get more serious behavior from them. So I have no problem with relegating casual clothing out of most school settings.

      4. I don’t buy into the “rape culture” stuff, but it bothers me to think that if I were one of these girls, someone I never consented to obeying gets to dictate what pants I can wear based on their personal feelz about modesty.

    7. “Let’s remember, we are talking about 13-year-old boys. Adult women have transformed children into monsters merely for finding the contours of a girl’s body attractive. The only people being shamed here are the boys. Their crime is being human.”

      Excellent observation.

      1. Along these lines, the other day my toddler was rough housing with some girls at daycare and they put him in time out. I don’t have a problem with that part, I do have a problem with the fact that my first thought was “one of the girls moms probably thinks he’s some little rape machine.” At least I can reflect on the insanity of it though.

      2. Their crime is being human male

        Sadly, many feminists actually believe this.

    8. and feminists wonder why they are not taken seriously.

    9. Of course, isn’t the real issue, once again, public schools?

  11. Koch: I’m Fighting to Restore a Free Society
    Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination.

    A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.

    More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. “The natural progress of things,” Jefferson wrote, “is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” He knew that no government could possibly run citizens’ lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

    1. It is a measure of how dangerously insane Progs have become that someone saying such reasonable and what even 20 years ago were things that everyone agreed upon could now be portrayed as an enemy of the people. We live in dark times.

      1. The thing that really depresses me is that a lot of them still think that they believe in that kind of stuff.
        They say things like “you shouldn’t legislate morality” (which I certainly agree with), but somehow don’t see how forced altruism is just as much a legislation of forced morality as laws based on conservative Christian values.

        1. Yeah, they can’t seem to understand that telling someone what food they can eat or how much they can drive their car or where they have to live or how big their house can be is just as bad or worse than telling them who they can have sex with.

    2. Are you done with the dead white guys!

      What do they have to do with my right to wear long-johns to work?

      1. I believe that was the fashion in the late 18th century.

  12. Move over Julia Roberts! 260lb woman strips down to a bikini on Hollywood Boulevard to show she’s a ‘Pretty Woman’ too

    My eyes! Aaauugghh! My eyes!

    1. Miss Terrell made this photograph her Facebook profile picture yesterday and it quickly generated 70 ‘Likes’

      And people say journalism is dying…

    2. Your sacrifice is noted – now I won’t have to click that link…

    3. 260lb woman strips down to a bikini on Hollywood Boulevard to show she’s a ‘Pretty Woman’ too

      That’s what she was showing? Really? The delusion among these people is truly epic.

    4. Miss Terrell gets an amorous look from a passerby

      It’s that damn rape culture!

      1. By “amorous” they mean “trying to suppress gag reflex”.

      2. How do you square the circle that fat gals should be totally ogled because they are so beautiful, with the story above about how horny 8th graders shouldn’t be gazing at cute 8th graders in yoga pants?

        Is there a weight/size limit at which it becomes OK to start Male Gazing the shit out of a woman?

    5. There are chubby chasers out there who want fat hookers.

      And I’m surprised the Daily Mail didn’t call her an 18-stone woman.

      1. Unless they were really large, I doubt 18 stones would be enough to kill her. Maybe a lucky shot right to the temple or something.

    6. My eyes! Aaauugghh! My eyes!

      If that’s only 260 lbs, she must be under 5 feet tall.

      to show she’s a ‘Pretty Woman’ too

      Uh, not so much.

    7. I know a few Jamaican gentlemen who would agree that that is a very beautiful woman.

      It’s interesting how much culture affects what is perceived as attractive.

  13. US man’s body found under the stairs by his ex-wife A YEAR after he crawled under there when no-one was home and died without anyone noticing

    Samuel Ephram McAlpine found dead by his ex-wife Christine Elizabeth McAlpine on March 31
    He was reported missing on March 29, 2013 while he was going through a divorce
    The McAlpine’s had rented out the Alaska house last year after failing to find a buyer
    Police believe McAlpine crawled into the house before the new tenants moved in
    An autopsy has not been completed but police say drugs and alcohol may have been played a part

    No one smelled anything?

    1. He’s not a medieval poop barrel, you know.

      1. I am sure he lacked exciting information too.

  14. Nice alt-text, but I think the photo is Hillary before photoshopping.

  15. ‘It was excessive force’: Unarmed woman shoved over bench by cop during student protests speaks as officer is re-assigned for his own safety after public backlash

    Christina Gardilcic does not believe she was doing anything wrong
    She said: ‘We were walking. The next thing I know my feet were in the air’
    Tucson Police riot officer who pushed her is identified as Sgt Joel Mann
    University of Arizona fans rioted after team lost a NCAA basketball match

    Reassigned for his own safety. Not because he attacked a defenseless woman for no reason. No. For his own safety. Disgusting.

    1. Officer safety is the most important thing – the “Prime Directive”, if you will.

      He got home safely that night.

    2. If he lived around here, damn straight he’d need to be reassigned for his own safety. The boys would likely take him out a mile and leave him to swim to shore. With water temperatures still below 50?F, that might not turn out well for him.

      1. Uh, from *Tucson*, that’s a multiday excursion.

        Far easier to take him south into the desert and just leave him.

    1. All [five] shots, according to prosecutors, were fired from no more than eight feet away, far closer than what prosecutors said the ‘optimum distance’ of 15 to 60 feet that are spelled out in training standards.
      Taylor, prosecutors said in the document, failed to consider, as he was trained to, what effects firing the bean bags at close range at a 95-year-old man might have.

      More training coming right up.

      1. Yeah, and my shoe horn looks exactly like a machete, too. Either these guys are the biggest pussies on earth and panic over the slightest hint of potential danger, or they are vicious thugs looking for an excuse to kill. But the media still call them “heroes”.

        1. The really long ones that old people like look a bit like a large blade.
          But even if it were a blade, these guys are the biggest pussies on earth.

      2. On the local news last night they played up that the officer has kids and has never been cited for misconduct before…he will walk after time off with pay.

      3. Maybe they can require that trainees be shot with beanbqg rounds closer than the “optimum rqnge.” They already are required to be shot.with Tasers. In fact, some LEOs I have met brag about.over-tasing fellow trainees for laughs.during tra8ning sassi9ns.

    2. This was an HampR post yesterday.

  16. Democratic Senate Candidate: McCutcheon ‘Worst Ruling Since Dred Scott’

    Former Capitol Hill staffer Rick Weiland is running for Senate in South Dakota, and he was among the Democrats upset with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on campaign finance.

    The Supreme Court struck down aggregate contribution limits in a Wednesday ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

    “Today’s decision of the United States Supreme Court to strike down any real limit on the purchase of our democracy by big money may be the worst decision made by any Supreme Court since the Dred Scott case reaffirmed slavery in 1857,” he wrote in a fundraising missive to supporters.

    1. The SCOTUS did the Progs a favor. Now when they get destroyed in November they can tell themselves it was all because of the evil Kochs and the Supreme Court instead of having to face the reality that their ideas suck.

      1. ^THIS

        It will be right along the lines of “The economy was just about to boom, but then the tsunami hit and screwed up everything.”

        Shriek will be telling us that the 8% support for Obamacare was just about to bounce to some huge number, but then the Koch brothers used their dirty money to sway support and the midterms to the evil repubs.

        1. Do the Kochs own major newspapers or TV networks?

          1. The Koch’s don’t need anything as pedestrian as newspapers, radio stations or TV networks!

            They simply rub their evil mind control goo on all their lucre and then spread it amongst the rube public creating a zombie army ready to do their bidding!

        2. You don’t know me then.

          I agree with the SCOTUS ruling yesterday. I support Citizens United too.

          I don’t blame the Kochs for anything. In fact, I never mention them unless it is in contrast to Warren Buffett or Soros who both earned their fortunes (the Kochs are inheritance bene-boys).

          1. Don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

          2. I don’t think anyone wants to know you. And the people who really do – I feel sorry for them.

          3. Koch Industries growth has outpaced the S&P500; by thousands of times since C. Koch took over in the ’60s. But sure, it is all inheritance.

            1. Its like drug money – one dirty dollar taints them all. And makes them all eligible for government confiscation.

      2. Remember, outspending your opponent is only bad when the Republicans do it.

    2. My progressive Facebook friends wasted no time doing a 180 on democracy vis-?-vis judicial review.

      1. What happened to the majesty of the court they were all talking about in summer of 12?

        1. That’s what memory holes are for. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia unelected activist judges.

    3. Hmmm….obviously not true, as it was a correct decision.

      And the Dred Scott case had nothing to do with reaffirming slavery. No one doubted the “legality” of slavery.

      So what is the worst decision since then?

      Im gonna suggest Federal Baseball Club v. National League. OWH, of course.

      1. There are too many to choose from. Of course, Korematsu always springs to mind.

      2. Wickard v. Filburn for worst decision since Dredd Scott.

        1. Until Korematsu, which says the feds can send you to a concentration camp merely for being considered part of a group that they fear.

          1. But Korematsu has had little long-term effect. Wickard on the other hand has essentially removed any meaningful limitation on federal power.

    4. I’ve really tried to avoid the reaction to this case as I find it the most depressing thing in the world how many people are willing to give up free speech/press. But I am guessing that this will be presented as if it has removed all limits on donations to candidates and not just the aggregate limits.

    5. Prog’s should be for Dred Scorr anyways right. You can’t have every state making their own laws. Everybody knows that’s the same as anarchy.

  17. is voting today on whether to declassify part of its report on the CIA’s Bush-era interrogation techniques

    BOOOSSSHH! The squirrel that keeps on giving. Seriously, what if there were a standard limitation on how long anything can be kept classified? Short of weapon designs, is there any truth we can’t handle after, say, a decade?

    1. The Lizard People/Kiwanis conspiracy.

      1. Kiwanis?! I thought they were in with the Rotary Club!

        Wheels within wheels within wheels…

        1. The Masons always freaked me out. Dave Mason especially.

    2. Seriously, what if there were a standard limitation on how long anything can be kept classified?

      Classify *everything* TS forever, and be done with it.

  18. Courtney Love insists a musical about Kurt Cobain is “very likely to happen.”

    The end will be a blast!

    1. +12 gauges

  19. Londoners Priced Out of Housing Blame Foreigners: Real Estate

    The U.K. capital’s status as a magnet for wealthy foreign home buyers is helping to drive prices in many areas beyond the reach of most Londoners. That’s putting pressure on politicians and developers to convince locals that they haven’t been forgotten in the rush to court overseas investors.

    Foreign-born buyers made 69 percent of central London new-home purchases in the two years through June, with 28 percent living outside the U.K., broker Knight Frank LLP said in October. Average London house prices increased 18 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier, the most since 2003, Nationwide Building Society said on April 2.

    1. You know who else blamed foreigners for their economic travails?

      1. San Franciscans?

      2. The rebellious Boxers in Qing China?

      3. Those guys with the “Their stealing are jobs” signs?

  20. As I predicted, the moaning and groaning about the most recent SCOTUS campaign finance ruling is well underway. If you let teh evul businessmenz contribute large sums of money to politicians’ campaigns, that is precisely equal to buying their unswerving obedience to your every wish! Democracy for sale! Oh, woe!

    It warms my black, shriveled hart to see the same people who fervently believe government is the only thing between us and the anarchic cannibal hordes freely admitting Twain’s dictum that elected politicians are America’s native criminal class.

    1. Huh. Well, I guess we need to limit what these bought-off politicians can do. You know, some sort of “limited government.”

      1. No, no, no. We need to give these people (who are clearly evil and not to be trusted, since any money will make them do whatever the payeer wants) more power, so they can control the people who bought them.

        1. yeah that should work

  21. The UK is now going to “crack down” on anyone who dissents from AGW.


    This reminds me of Nazi Germany making it illegal to teach relativity since it was “Jewish Science”. The Nazis didn’t pass that law because they had a persuasive case that any science done by a Jew was invalid. They used the law because their case was such nonsense they could only win with the power of the gun.

    If there is any doubt in your mind that AGW is bunk and at some level even its supporters know it, you need only look at actions like this to answer that doubt. If they thought they could win a fair argument, they wouldn’t be using the gun to try and silence the other side.

    1. It’s not even something we can make a smart-alec remark about.

      It has officially arrived.


      The UK has played its part.

      Take a bow.

      1. It is terrible. The only upside is that it shows just how weak their case is how desperate they have become.

        No one ever had to make saying something like “leaded gasoline harms people” illegal. If you have to use the gun to shut the other side up, you have lost the argument.

        1. They aren’t making it illegal.

          This is just hysterical ranting by a poncy English politician.

          1. True. It isn’t law yet. But the fact that they would if they could, makes my point just as well.

          2. It also seems to be directed at members of the government specifically. Which is bad too, but rather far from enforcing agreement on the general population.

            1. This is the same continent where Geert Wilders gets brought up on charges because he says variation of “I don’t like Muslims flooding into my country.”

              I’d be shocked if they didn’t pass this amazingly overbearing free speech limitation.

              1. Is there legislation or is it just some hysterical ranting? I can’t read the whole article.

    2. Who needs the scientific method when you’ve got consensus?

      1. “The men of experiment are like the ant, they only collect and use; the reasoners resemble spiders, who make cobwebs out of their own substance. But the bee takes the middle course: it gathers its material from the flowers of the garden and field, but transforms and digests it by a power of its own.”

      2. Democracy is the highest ideal attainable by man. Reason and morality don’t mean a damn thing until an arbitrary grouping of people vote on their validity. Democracy!

    3. appearances by climate skeptics ? should be accompanied by “health warnings.”

      “This statement has not been approved by the Ministry of Truth.”

      Yet another reason never to set foot in the UK.

    4. I should point out that it isn’t illegal to question the cult. One of the cult’s members is saying that the anyone not in the cult should shut up.

      The backlash as people realize they were lied to is going to be epic.

      1. That’s assuming people realize they were lied to. When the lie is reinforced in every newspaper article about the weather, and every nature program on the tube, people come to accept it as truth.

      2. Serious question: What will this “backlash” look like?

      3. What backlash? The enviromentalists have been wrong since Malthus.

        Remember the “population bomb” in the 60s? Right now most of the developed world is below replacement rate fertility, and most dumbasses still believe that the world is overpopulated.

        Theres never any backlash against these idiots.

        Or predictions about how were were supposed to run out of oil by 1990, or how by the year 2000 the rainforest was supposed to disappear. Or how we were going to run out of places for our garbage.

        How many people do you talk to still believe we’re running out of trees? Still believe we’re running out of landfills?

        There is never a backlash no matter how often these guys are wrong, or how often reality comes by and teabags the supporters right in their face.

        1. There will be a backlash Bard, but it won’t be against these idiots. The backlash will be against science in general and these idiots, being shameless and power mad, will likely be leading it. That, sadly, will be much worse than even the damage these idiots are already doing.

        2. You left out the Ice Age glaciation that will dominate our continents by the end of the 80’s.

          Clearly we need moar regulationz and gubmint power, otherwise whichever catastrophe that’s currently popular within academia, will kill us all.

      4. People tend to forget wrong predictions and remember correct ones.

        But this is probably big enough that people will remember how many wrong predictions. I hope. But you never know. An awful lot of people seem to really want to believe in the disaster scenarios for some reason.

  22. “A few years ago, Harvard librarians discovered that the covers of three of the books in their 15-million-volume collection were made from human skin. One of the books contained Roman poetry, another French philosophy and the third was a treatise on medieval Spanish law.

    “According to an inscription in one of the skin-covered volumes, titled “Practicarum quaestionum circa leges regias…,” the person from whom the cover was crafted was actually flayed while he was still alive.”


    1. the covers of three of the books … were made from human skin. One of the books contained Roman poetry, another French philosophy and the third was a treatise on medieval Spanish law.

      Which one was covered in foreskin?

      1. The Time Travel Adventures of Warty Hugeman

        1. +1 Doomcock

      2. Just the forewards were.

        I only nosed around the prefaces of those books, though, so I could be mistaken..

    2. And the Appendices were made of real appendices.

      1. +1 vestigial organ

    3. Wait no Necronomicon? How is Ash supposed to fight the army of darkness now?

      1. I was waiting for a Lovecraft joke, and I guess this is close enough.

        1. something something Mad Arab something Elder Gods…

      2. Oh, sorry, we ‘borrowed’ the Harvard copy to keep it out of the Faculty’s hands.

  23. Gentlemen prefer body-builders! Pictures reveal how Marilyn Monroe kept her iconic figure in shape with weights and a bizarre diet

    Photos of the starlet working out were left on the cutting-room floor after a 1952 shoot for LIFE magazine

    Those are some serious weights. Totally.

    1. They sold some of Monroe’s costumes at auction a few years back. It turns out she was very thin and quite small. Fat women everywhere who clung to the myth that actresses used to be fat just like them cried.

      1. Although many fat women still cling to the myth.

  24. North Carolina: State elections officials seek tighter security

    Strach said North Carolina’s check found 765 registered North Carolina voters who appear to match registered voters in other states on their first names, last names, dates of birth and the final four digits of their Social Security numbers. Those voters appear to have voted in North Carolina in 2012 and also voted in another state in 2012.

    “Now we have to look individually at each one,” Strach said. “Could there have been data error?”

    The crosscheck also found 35,570 voters in North Carolina who voted in 2012 whose first names, last names and dates of birth match those of voters who voted in other states in 2012, but whose Social Security numbers were not matched.

    “A lot of states don’t provide last four SSN, or they don’t have that information,” Strach explained.

  25. Another House testimony into the fake Benghazi scandal yields nothing:

    Former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell denied Wednesday that there was any cover-up or political influence in messaging after the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

    “We did not deliberately downplay the role of terrorists in the Benghazi attack in our analysis or in the talking points,” Morell said during a House Intelligence Committee hearing.


    1. Yet somehow the media thought it was all the fault of a movie producer.

    2. http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..86435.html

      Former CIA deputy director Mike Morell, who also served a stint as acting director of Langley, is testifying before House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence today. The hearing focuses on the Obama administration’s response to the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

      Cutting through all of the back and forth, the most important point is this: The U.S. intelligence community knew right away that al Qaeda was involved in the attack.

      “The analysts said from the get-go that al Qaeda was involved in this attack,” Morell said.

      The former CIA man was asked why, then, was “al Qaeda” edited out of the administration’s now infamous talking points.

      “The only way we knew that anybody who was involved in that attack that night was associated with al Qaeda was from classified sources,” Morell claimed.


      An American ambassador was murdered and the Administration’s response was to lie about and blame it on an innocent man and conduct a racist smear against Muslims.

      That is a “fake scandal” to you because you are retarded and a fascist. To everyone else that is a big fucking deal.

      1. John, by taking the time to craft a long topical rebuttal, including extensive quotation, you have done a terrible thing.

        The non sentient shambles of what was once a human being has learned that the sequence of characters

        Another House testimony into the fake Benghazi scandal yields nothing:

        will trigger a massive response. The response will, in turn, demonstrate that it matters; that the oxygen it consumes, the food it converts to shit is not going to waste.

        This is, of course a terrible thing, because it doesn’t matter. It is utterly unworthy of notice. By implying it matters, you are setting it up for future emotional pain caused by the mismatch between its expectations and reality. It’s like tossing an earthworm onto a skillet with drops of sugar water and turning up the heat.

        Moreover, it will make more comments of that variety, because it knows they will generate a response.

        So, by rebutting it, you have encouraged it to spew more filth, and tricked it into thinking it matters thus setting it up for future pain.

        1. Sometimes it’s important to rebut buttplugs bullshit for the benefit of casual readers and lurkers.

        2. Sometimes it’s important to rebut buttplugs bullshit for the benefit of casual readers and lurkers.

  26. Ivan Lopez?

    Sounds Cuban. We had best invade before Castro’s plot to take over the country unfolds.

    1. Too late.

      Oh wait, you meant take over this country.

      Still too late.

  27. Old Math Casts Doubt on Accuracy of Oil Reserve Estimates

    The problem is the Arps equation has been twisted to apply to shale technology, which didn’t exist when Arps died in 1976. John Lee, a University of Houston engineering professor and an authority on estimating reserves, said billions of barrels of untapped shale oil in the U.S. are counted by companies relying on limited drilling history and tweaks to Arps’s formula that exaggerate future production. That casts doubt on how close the U.S. will get to energy independence, a goal that’s nearer than at any time since 1985, according to data from the U.S. Energy

    “Things could turn out more pessimistic than people project,” said Lee. “The long-term production of some of those oil-rich wells may be overstated.”

    1. That sucks if true. Of course they have been saying oil is going to run out pretty much since they started pumping it out of the ground. So time will tell.

      1. Well obviously it will run out, the question is when. Is it 15 years, 75 years, or 375 years?

        That said honestly I prefer that we do not try to get to energy independence today, lets buy up all that Saudi oil today when it is relatively cheap, then when global supplies do start to dwindle we can start tapping our own stocks.

        1. We havent run out of whale oil yet.

          It too obviously will run out, but it might take a comet strike or something similar to make that happen.

          1. I half jokingly suggested at a corporate Sustainability Committee that we decrease our Japanese subsidiary’s reliance on imported fuels by transitioning to renewable whale oil.

        2. It will run out at some point. Whether that point is close enough in the future to be any kind of consideration today is up for debate.

          The Yellowstone volcano will erupt again at some point. But that that doesn’t mean we should base any policies or actions on that inevitability.

        3. There has been some evidence of chemosynthetic bacteria in the crust producing hydrocarbons on come well sites. The extent of their output has not yet been determined, nor has the size of the subterranian biome. I’m waiting for more research (which doesn’t not appear to be forthcoming)

          1. The process by which oil is formed is really not well known. We think it is from fossils and such. But that is only a guess. No one really knows.

          2. Algea fuel?

        4. We already have alternative fuels they’re just more expensive then oil. Oil will never run out, it will just become gradually more expensive until we eventually switch to something cheaper.

          1. Exactly right, Bard.

  28. Yes, I know /r/politics is terrible and I’m just a masochist picking at low-hanging fruit on this one, but holy shit.

    1. Your average reddit commenter is about 50lbs overweight and thinks guns are evil. I think their odds at revolution suck.

      1. They’re also ridiculously young. I frequent a few subreddits, and when they’ve done demographic surveys, I’m always in the oldest ~15%. Contrast that with here, where I’m pretty much the youngest. Most of the people on reddit aren’t even sophomoric, since they haven’t made it to 19 yet.

  29. Obama Regrets Redistributing 1 Percent-Priced Sandwich at Fair-Wages Deli

    The president paid a visit to Zingerman’s Deli in Ann Arbor, Mich., today as part of his push to increase the minimum wage.

    Zingerman’s, he says, pays its employees “fair wages.” Whether they’re fair enough to afford the lunch the president had isn’t clear: He ordered a small Reuben for $13.99; larges go for nearly $17.

    In his remarks, he bumped up against some fundamental issues of fairness, too. Thinking his sandwich was too big at first, he gave half of it to adviser Valerie Jarrett. But he came to regret committing himself to redistribution.

    “After I finished [my] half, I wanted the half back,” he said. “But it was too late, all she had was the pickle ? so I took the pickle.”

    1. Was talking to a fellow daycare owner last week. She owns two and has decided to sell one of them. The cost of labor as indirectly dictated by the government just doesn’t make it worth her while given the enormous intensity of the work. Sure, it makes money but there comes a point in the accounting books where a business owner (and this really is intensely personal and impossible to quantify) determines it’s not worth it.

      This is what people who advocate higher taxes and wages as a means to a ‘better or more equitable world’ don’t grasp.

      I’m fast arriving at the point because I can’t really pass on the costs to clients/parents because there’s a limit to what they will pay – and that’s a function of the government’s policies which I’d rather not get into here.

      1. I know the PQ is evil, but evil enough to come after you for posting here?

      2. Yeah, demand has a curve too. You can only sell daycare or anything else if you can sell it at a price that is equal to or less than the value your customers get from it.

        You of course understand that. Progs however base their entire ideology on denying that basic fact of life.

        1. I’m sure every parent out there is willing to pay $49,999 a year in daycare so they can work their job for their $50,000 salary.

      3. Here is your solution….

        Manditory daycare for all.

        Taxpayers must put kids in a licensed daycare facility. If they do not for any reason, including not having kids then they are penaltaxed. If they cannot afford daycare then government will subsidize the cost for them up to 100% if necessary.

        This absolutely critical and a compelling government interest because it is the only way to ensure a steady supply of high quality profitable early childhood education and care centers and make them affordable to all parents.


    2. Didn’t he bogart joints too when he was part of the Choom Gang?

    3. There are those who say the Reubens at Zingermans are too large…

      1. So they are Reubenesque?

    4. That’s pretty much how it is for a lot of us. Government takes half of our income, we want the other half back, but in the end we just get the pickle.

  30. http://dailycaller.com/2014/04…..n-control/

    The college attempted to persuade Saucier to plead guilty to the charges and undergo counseling. He refused, opting instead for a formal hearing. At the hearing, administrators refused to let him play his recorded video, which he argued would acquit him by showing that he did nothing wrong. Saucier was found guilty of all charges. His suspension was lifted, but any further trouble from him and he will be expelled, administrators said.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has accused ACC of violating Saucier’s free speech and due process rights by disciplining him for speaking his mind and subjecting him to a sham trial.

    “ACC’s myriad violations of Nicholas Saucier’s rights, effective rewriting of its conduct procedures, and failure to rectify its errors should give all Americans great concern,” said Peter Bonilla, director of FIRE’s Individual Rights Defense Program, in a statement.

    Just think, if these people had the ability, our entire justice system would be like this. Hell, some of it already is.

    1. Following the speaker to his car to continue the conversation is starting to get slightly worrisome, but if that’s all he did you just keep him an eye on him. And you certainly can’t say that he’s a danger to anyone.

      Though he should be thankful that he wasn’t involved with the real justice system, or he’d be dead:

      Administrators claimed that Saucier became increasingly hostile, called Malloy a “fucking snake,” and reached into his pocket for something that could have been a weapon. (It was actually a video recording device.)

      1. That is what the school said he did. He claimed he had a video that showed that is not what happened. They wouldn’t let him introduce his evidence at the hearing.

        I wasn’t there, but I am inclined to believe he did nothing of the sort. He probably followed the guy, but that is his right. Since when is it illegal for me to confront you in a public place?

        1. I’m saying that a cop would have shot him for getting out a camera, then claim it’s ok because they thought it could maybe possibly be a weapon.

          1. And the union will require you to prove the officer didn’t know the suspect didn’t have a weapon before you can actually bring charges or fire him.

  31. Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal Urges People to Stop Driving GM

    General Motors Co. said it is recalling 1.5 million vehicles worldwide, because the electronic power-steering assist can suddenly stop working, making them harder to steer. Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal is among those calling for GM to make a stronger statement and tell owners to stop driving their cars immediately. Blumenthal believes GM made a decision to hide the defect of ignition switches. Blumenthal along with Massachusetts Senator Edward Markey is introducing legislation aimed at better auto safety reporting.

    The measure would require auto companies to give federal regulators more information about fatal crashes. Blumenthal says he and Massachusetts Senator Edward Markey proposed the bill after the 12 deaths and 31 reported crashes linked to GM’s ignition switch recall.

    1. 12 deaths

      Not to trivialize loss of life, but…12 dead over the course of a decade? Aren’t there things over which we could be more rightly be outraged?

      1. No amount of outrage is enough for Government Motors. I don’t want any more laws passed, but I do want to see those fucks sued into oblivion.

        1. Two things. First, it wasn’t GM that wanted the bailout, it was the UAW. The bailout happened because without it GM would have gone Chapter 11 and gotten out of its union contracts. The bailout had nothing to do with GM and everything to do with the unions. In fact, if the Obama Administration didn’t have a gun to their heads, I am quite sure GM would have rather gone into bankruptcy since it would have allowed them to re-organize and become a competitive company.

          Second, no matter what you think about the bailouts, the feds shouldn’t be lying and trying to destroy a company no matter how loathsome that company is. If they can do it to GM, they can do it to anyone.

          1. GM did go through bankruptcy.

            1. Derp! Derp de derpity derp!

            2. It was called “bankruptcy” but the laws were changed just for that case to ensure that it didn’t result in what would have happened under bankruptcy law, i.e. the union contracts got voided.

              Being retarded, you of course don’t understand that and just see the magic word “bankruptcy” and nothing else.

              1. And don’t forget about the unions getting paid off before the investors with secured loans.

                That was the day that we discovered that not only didn’t MNG know the difference between secured and unsecured debt, he also could not be taught the difference no matter how many people tried.

                1. he also could not be taught the difference

                  This is why I eventually filtered him. He didnt learn, or refused to, IMO.

                2. I remember that SF. And don’t forget also, the unions got paid before people who had valid personal injury tort judgements against GM. They literally fucked people in wheel chairs who had been put there by GM to make sure the unions got theirs.

                  And of course our resident retarded fascist sockpuppet thinks it is great.

                3. SF, that was the most shocking bit Obama pulled. If Palin is such the sophisticated investor he would be absolutely indignant about it.

                  But he wasn’t. Instead. Derp.

              2. I explained this to you Peanuts at the time (before you got here).

                The bankruptcy judge classified the UAW as a “critical vendor” using precedent from airline pilots/airlines in the 80s.

                Now STFU, John.

                1. The bankruptcy judge changed the law to fuck everyone else.

                  I know I shouldn’t respond to you but it is almost a game to see if we can bait you into saying something even more stupid than usual. There is nothing “critical” about the UAW. There are autoworkers all over the country and there was no danger of them leaving if their pay was cut. There is no analogy to the airline pilots. The judge was an Obama hack who did the administration’s bidding.

                  Go back to cutting and pasting talking points. You are too retarded to do that. But wow, it is better than when you get off the talking points. Then it gets downright comical.

                  1. The bankruptcy judge changed the law to fuck everyone else.

                    This is a lie. No law was “changed”. All bondholders took a haircut.

                    1. Ruling the UAW critical venders, is effectively changing the law for that case.

                      Yes, no law was “changed” in the sense that that rule will never apply to any other case. But I don’t think that really makes your point very well.

                    2. GM also got a bankruptcy that allows them to get rid of their debts, but keep their previous losses as tax credits.

                      A novel ruling for a “bankruptcy”

                    3. Hate to come to Buttplug’s defense, even in a limited way, but he is technically correct (which is the best kind of correct!) The judge didn’t rewrite the law, he merely ignored it and substituted his own preference for the law. Still evil and wrong, but as you say it will never apply to any other case, unless some other judge goes rogue and rules in bad faith contrary to the evidence and law, as in this case.

                2. And since when are retirees “critical vendors”? They don’t work there anymore you fucking half wit.

                  God, you are just a disgrace to the entire living planet.

                3. funny how PB disproved his own point

                4. Wait, did Buttplug just claim to be here longer than John?

              3. John, it was still kind of bankruptcy. Probably like 8% bankruptcy.

                1. AD,

                  Yeah, it was definitely an 8% bankruptcy or maybe a special Chapter 8 one.

            3. In the same sense that the the FBI liberated Waco, yes they did.

      2. I agree. GM sells millions of cars. I find it hard to believe that a fault that is rare enough to only cause 12 deaths is some kind of criminal negligence.

        1. Although the sham “uncontrolled acceleration” nonsense cost Toyota $1.2 Billion.

          1. And Audi something similar in the 1980s. Maybe we should just get the federal government out of the car safety business and let tort law and the market sort it out. It is so crazy, it might just work.

          2. This why we can’t have nice things!

  32. This from a conservative film-maker and contributing writer for Breitbart.com, in response to today’s shootings at Fort Hood …

    Patrick Dollard

    If there is even one more act of Muslim terrorism, it is then time for Americans to start slaughtering Muslims in the streets, all of them.
    6:35 PM – 2 Apr 2014
    508 Retweets 155 favorites


    Spawn of Bratfart!

    1. Perhaps a healthy debate on the whether or not military basis should be giant gun-free zones would be more in order.

      Never understood why I was trusted to carry an arsenal on my body in a foreign country, but could be court-martialed for a single live round on a domestic base.

      1. Doesn’t that go back to the days when officers had good reason to fear for their safety around armed conscripts?

        1. No. It goes back to Clinton paying off the gun grabbers in 1993.

          Needless to say a lot of people in the military are hunters and gun people. Many of them live off post and often own guns. Thanks to Clinton’s EO, whenever they move on post, they have to store their weapons with the MPs and cannot legally possess them in their quarters.

          Clinton made all military bases gun free zones and free targets for our enemies. We wouldn’t want soldiers having access to guns. Guns are magic items that would make them vicious killers.

          1. Um, that was the rule on Luke AFB in 1987 – 1989 long before Clinton. No clue if that was an Air Force Reg, a base reg, or if you’re overstating Clinton’s impact however

            We could own guns but they had to be stored in with the MP’s and checked in/out if we wanted to use them

            1. The AF may have already had that rule. Clinton made it universal. Clearly not all places had that rule or Clinton wouldn’t have needed to issue the EO.

          2. John, none of that is true.

            Tons of people in the military have and store guns in their quarters – just not in the bachelor quarters but on-base housing (pretty much exclusively for servicemembers with dependents).

            The weapons have to be registered, many bases will provide space in their armory (if they have one and its of suitable size) but other than a restriction of transporting the guns directly off-base or directly to their storage (no wandering around base with them) plenty of people have weapons on-base.

            I can’t speak for the Army/AF specific rules, but those are the base conditions the Navy/MC have for weapons ownership/possession on the bases I’ve been assigned.

        2. I don’t know – goes back long before I joined in the 80’s. When we were deployed, the NCO’s and non-shithead officers distributed a couple boxes of store bought 5.56 and 9mm to Marines they trusted while traveling so we weren’t totally vulnerable.

          1. Drake,

            The military has always kept a very tight control on their weapons. Soldiers have never to my knowledge just taken their weapons to their barracks or homes.

            The Clinton order banned privately owned weapons on all military bases. So if you move to onpost housing, you have to store you handguns and such at the MP station.

            1. Marines, on the other hand, are required to have their rifles with them, but aren’t allowed any ammunition for the rifles thanks to Clinton’s order.

              1. At least they have a club to defend themselves. In the Army it is an enormous no no to even put a weapon in a personal vehicle, barracks room or home.

                1. Yes – The Army is far more worried about armed soldiers than terrorists or criminals. I’ve been on terrorism response exercises where the soldiers were transported to the site with their weapons locked in a separate vehicle.

            2. I know of 2 exceptions.
              Pre-WWI Marines basically lived with their Springfields. They could purchase cheap ammo and use the ranges on or off-base while off duty. No coincidence that they became legendary marksmen.

              Recon Marines in the 80’s were living with their weapons in the barracks. (At least at Lejeune) The more elite units actually lived and trained as they would fight.

        3. No, it was the Clinton Presidency, after the Draft had been over for some time.

  33. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014…..-election/

    Massive voter fraud uncovered in North Carolina.

    155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state ? and the latest date of registration or voter activity did not take place within N.C.

    North Carolina is a pretty red state. If the fraud was this widespread there, it is a good guess it was just as widespread in every other swing or close to swing state.

    Between this and the IRS scandal, is it fair to call the entire 12 election into question? The pre and post election polls indicated that Romney won big with Republicans and independents. No candidate had ever won that big with his own party and independents and lost. Magically on election day Democratic turnout was huge and Republican turnout was awful. I guess now we know why. The Democrats engaged in massive vote fraud to get their numbers up and used the IRS to cut the legs off of the Republican turnout efforts.

    Did that make enough difference to swing the election? We will never know and the state media will never look. Regardless, it is pretty clear that the 12 election was the dirtiest in a very long time.

    1. “Another Fake Scandal” coming in 3, 2, 1…

      1. Of course. Just because they faked 155,000 votes in one state doesn’t mean voteer fraud isn’t a myth.

        1. Just because they faked 155,000 votes in one state doesn’t mean voteer fraud isn’t a myth

          Unless a RETHUGLIKKKAN wins. Then it’s very much real and OMGZ STOLEN ELEKSHUNZ!!!!!111!!!11!!

      1. BUSHPIGS!!111!!CHRISTFAGS!!11!!!

      2. Yeah only 8% of votes are from fraud.

    2. I would like to see prosecution against every individual they can match up as voting illegally.

      Eventually, one of them will crack and sell someone higher up.

      1. I would too. Even I am astounded by the 155,000 number. That is enormous.

        1. Thats just the number of people who moved.

          Im surprised its that low.

          1. Out of North Carolina? I thought the Carolinas were net ingress states, so a low egress rate isn’t a surprise to me.

            1. Oh, that was NC only? I was thinking it was any 2 states. But yeah, that might be about right for NC.

              Lots of college students from other states. Even net ingress states have lots of egress.

    3. To be fair, the 155k were only registered in two.states. 35k actually voted in both states, and only 765 had exact name, DOB, and SSN matches.

      1. The 35k went to 765 because most states didnt report the SSN.

        So I think the 35k is the starting point. Obviously, some of those are coincidence, same name, same birthdate. Those happen. So now we are at 34k.

        1. Right. It’s still egregious, but not necessarily huge. I would be curious to see the ditribution of “second states.” How.many of the dual registrants are university students or other transients?

          1. 35,000 fake votes is “huge” already.

      2. I would also point out that states do a piss poor job of removing people from the rolls.

        That is the reason for most of the 120k difference between 155k and 35k.

        I registered in Wisconsin in 1992 and when I returned to KY in 1994, I found I was still registered. Either WI didnt send KY the information, or KY did nothing with it.

        I didnt bother to reregister in KY until I moved in 1997. So I may have technically voted illegally from 1994-96, as it was under my original KY registration which should have been voided when I registered in WI.

        1. Either WI didnt send KY the information, or KY did nothing with it.

          I believe they consider that to be your responsibility.

          1. That wasnt the explanation I got at the time.

            There was a part of the registration info in WI that you had to list previous registration, so they could send them the info.

          2. When I moved to New York in the year 2000, I registered there and sent the required notice to my former home in Florida to remove myself from the voter rolls.

            Fast forward to 2012, when I go to vote. By that time I’ve moved back to Florida. In the meantime, my mom, at whose house I had been registered originally, had moved to the same county as me.

            It turns out that not only was I never removed from the voter rolls, but when my mother moved (and the county got the notice from the post office), my voter registration was moved there, despite already having registered to vote in the same county. I’m still not sure if that was untangled correctly.

        2. While I was a student at Penn State in the 1990s, I was registered in Centre County. I learned later that I was also registered in my parents’ home county as late as 2000.

          1. Since PA passed a motor voter law, they do a better job of updating the.rolls when.people move, but not perfect.

            1. I am registered in two states, NY and NJ, and could easily vote twice.

    4. I have complete confidence that Obama won 120% of the vote in Philly. And purely a coincidence that the Democrats violently oppose any kind of ID check or reform.

    5. There were precincts in Philadelphia that voted 100% for Obama during the last presidential election. Philadelphia has had a thriving black middle class since the before the Civil War. That something doesn’t smell right in Philadelphia goes without saying.

      And I also want to note that the Jersey Mike’s here in Pasadena, CA has had only lemon Tastycakes for the last 3 months.

    6. I don’t believe it’s voter fraud, but of something far more sinister (go to 1:39).

        1. If only EDIT BUTTON could hide my shame….

          1. Actually, I don’t want trolls retconning their previous comments, so I’ll take the public shame.

            1. That’s so easy to handle it’s not even worthy of concern.

  34. Charles Koch speaks:

    “Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we’re “un-American” and trying to “rig the system,” that we’re against “environmental protection” or eager to “end workplace safety standards.” These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s observation, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company:”


    1. Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company:



    2. Did he mention how great it is to inherit a $60 billion company?

      1. Did he mention how great it is to live in a country where you can work to earn wealth you can then pass on to your children?

        1. Continuing your families legacy is just not fair.

          1. Yup. That is why Joe Kennedy cut off his wastrel children. And those children did the same.

      2. Why would that matter, especially to the Number One Classical Liberal Capitalist?

        1. It doesn’t. I just like how liberals like Buffett, Gates, et al favor a meritocracy over feudalism.

          1. I’m sure Buffett’s four-term congressman dad didn’t leave him with shit! And it’s not like Buffett ever uses his special relationship with the ruling class to profit! For that matter, Gates’ dad was pretty well off too.

          2. Being able to pass your wealth onto your children: now feudalism. I really don’t understand why you get upset when we call you a progressive.

      3. Which has fuck all to do with anything, why, exactly? Your coders need to upgrade your random gibberish generator. You’re not even on the same level as anonbot when it comes to being able to pass the Turing test. He at least occasionally says something relevant.

      4. Why do you think that matters? They seem to have done well running the company they inherited. And even if they didn’t it’s theirs. They are either right or not, regardless of whether or not they are truly self-made men.

      5. From Wikipedia:

        “Charles de Ganahl Koch (/?ko?k/; born November 1, 1935) is an American businessman and philanthropist. He is co-owner, chairman of the board, and chief executive officer of Koch Industries. His brother David H. Koch also owns 42% of Koch Industries and serves as Executive Vice President. The brothers inherited the business from their father, Fred C. Koch, and have since expanded the business to 2,600 times its inherited size.[4] Originally involved exclusively in oil refining and chemicals, Koch Industries has expanded to include process and pollution control equipment and technologies; polymers and fibers; minerals; fertilizers; commodity trading and services; forest and consumer products; and ranching.”

        Not that everyone here didn’t already know you’re a liar, and a bad one at that.

    3. If we let the Koch brothers speak, and their words are widely publicized, then how can we continue to call them “shadowy Billionaires” in our fund-raising letters? DNC

    4. The Koch brothers and Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s clan are Roman Catholic. (Koch, pronounced ‘koke’ is not a Jewish name.)

      Roman Catholics are not intentionally mean to anyone, ever. This is the culture of Roman Catholicism.

    5. Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company:

      “LA LA LA LA!!!! CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!!111!!!!!” /proggie diphits

  35. I’m fast arriving at the point because I can’t really pass on the costs to clients/parents because there’s a limit to what they will pay – and that’s a function of the government’s policies which I’d rather not get into here.

    You should just send some goons over to the customers’ houses to beat it out of them.

    “I learned it from you, Prime Minister.”

  36. Apparently it’s now against the law to own shit.

    FBI agents Wednesday seized “thousands” of cultural artifacts, including American Indian items, from the private collection of a 91-year-old Rush County man who had acquired them over the past eight decades.

    1. We have always been at war with personal property.

    2. Yes. If you own an artifact or anything with Ivory in it and you don’t have papers proving that it wasn’t stolen, the government will take it and charge you with a crime.

      There are people who own antique ivory canes and piano keys and such who had the federal government in the stroke of a pen last month make them criminals and their antiques worthless on anything but the black market.

      1. I thought it was just more restrictions on sales (which is also bad). Is there something in there that makes mere possession criminal?

    3. Robert A. Jones, special agent in charge of the Indianapolis FBI office, would not say at a news conference specifically why the investigation was initiated, but he did say the FBI had information about Miller’s collection and acted on

      OK ?.

    4. Sounds like someone refused to sell something to a museum. This should learn him.

    5. The aim of the investigation is to determine what each artifact is, where it came from and how Miller obtained it, Jones said, to determine whether some of the items might be illegal to possess privately.

      Uh, shouldn’t you do that before seizing someone’s property?

  37. Part 2 of the debate:

    Farage v Clegg: Farage won easily. On Europe, his argument is now the one to beat

    Farage won. Oh, his answers were glib and simplistic; many of his policies are unreal and lacking in substance. But time and time again, he hit Clegg on the things that strike people as vital. On immigration: open borders benefit the rich and hurt the poor competing for jobs and services. On Europe: it has become too distant, too big, too centralising, yet too incompetent to justify its power. And on foreign policy, too, he landed a powerful blow. The orthodoxy in Westminster might be that Putin is evil and needs putting in his place, but most Brits just don’t care. Undeniably, the Russian leader has done terrible things and his position regarding Syria and Ukraine is disreputable. But what Clegg doesn’t seem to understand ? and Farage does ? is that most voters are weary of Britain and its allies playing the world’s policemen. We’ve gone to war in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and many people now want to give peace a chance

  38. “One of the more bizarre orthodoxies quickly emerging among an entire generation of young conservatives and libertarians over the past decade or so is that Alexander Hamilton represents the beginning of the end of republican liberty in America. Amazingly enough, for a whole set of folks in their early to late twenties, the demonization of Hamilton has simply become a fact of history.

    “While I fully admit to disagreeing with much of what Hamilton advocated?especially his promotion of nearly unhindered executive power and his numerous proposals for the gross intrusion of politics into economics, industry, and banking?he was and is not the devil.

    “In the larger scheme of eternity, he probably even would not rate as a minor demon.”


  39. The bankruptcy judge classified the UAW as a “critical vendor” using precedent from airline pilots/airlines in the 80s.

    Let’s put that one under the microscope.

    Without the UAW, it would be completely impossible to find a high school dropout capable of operating a screwdriver.


    1. And it is impossible to run a car factory unless you have union workers to do so. Those Toyota and BMW and Subaru factories you see all over the country are just Potemkin villages built by the evil Kochs.

    2. Indeed, they might have to settle for college graduates who can’t find jobs in underwater basket weaving, or *gasp* robots!

      1. Probably the robots. The college graduates who can’t find jobs in underwater basket weaving often times still have trouble with the concept of “righty tighty, leftie loosey,” much less anything more complicated. There’s a reason they all end up as baristas at Starbucks.

    3. “Vendor”? So workers are a commodity* the union is selling?

      *I know labor is a commodity, but the left usually resents characterizing it that way.

  40. So as I was walking into work this morning, I past a TV in the hall tuned to CNN. The banner along the bottom of the screen read “Shooting at Ft. Hood Despite Gun Restrictions”

    Really??? Despite? I think a better word would be BECAUSE OF, you fucking dipshits!!!

    It boggles the mind how these morons seem to be absolutely flabergasted every time a nutbar hell bent on shooting a bunch of people just blatantly ignore the gun rules. I mean, how can this be? There were signs and everything!

    1. I know! It’s even more shocking than the fact that people are still victims of domestic violence in Cambridge!

      1. The gun banners really are a bunch of fucking animists aren’t they? Not only do they seem to believe that guns have some kind of evil power to turn people into violent sociopaths, they also seem to believe that signs also carry some kind of magical power that makes bad people not do bad things. Which is why they’re always so shocked when someone shoots up a school, or a movie theater, or anywhere else that has the magical protective “gun free zone” signs. And I’m sure the people of Cambridge are equally shocked that there’s still domestic violence in their town. There’s a sign people! A SIGN!!!!!

    2. It is a bit of an improvement that they will at least imply that the restrictions didn’t work. I am frankly surprised they were not saying “gun restrictions prevent even worse massacre at Fort Hood.”

    3. They don’t blatantly ignore the gun rules, they blatantly take advantage of them.

      Every shooting takes place in a gun free zone, and the perp has mental health problems. Maybe start with those two FACTS?

      Funny that you never see shootings where the armed/unarmed status of the target population is unknown.

      1. There has never been a mass shooting at a gun show. In fact, I don’t think I have ever heard of a shooting period. You would think that those things would be blood baths out of a Sam Pekenpah movie. Yet, oddly they are probably about as safe a place as their is.

      2. Like I said above, these fucktards actually appear to believe in magical totems like “gun free zone” signs. You’d think at some point they’d maybe start to question the efficacy of their totems, but apparently they’re just as fanatical as the religious fundies they tend to hate and mock. Kind of ironic, really.

      3. I think one time someone shot up a bunch of armed cops. One time. And I am reminded of that whenever I bring up shootings in gun free zones with serious gun grabbers. That single incident completely and totally refutes the argument that gun free zones are target rich zones. Because of that single isolated incident, the argument that shooters seek out gun free zones is completely and totally false. Doesn’t matter that every other incident was in a gun free zone. Doesn’t matter. That single isolated incident proves every other shooting to be false.

        1. And he was a Terminator so it doesn’t really count.

  41. Someone was on here the other day saying that Minnosota is so brain dead Al Franken is going to win re-election. Well, not so fast

    Only 41 percent of respondents had a favorable view of Sen. Franken, while 45 percent had an unfavorable view of him. Only 44 percent approve of the job he is doing.

    ? 54% of respondents disapprove of the Affordable Care Act, and only 38% approve.

    ? Only 40% of respondents think Al Franken deserves re-election.


    Those are epically bad numbers for an incumbent less than a year out for standing for re-election.

    1. But only about 25-30% of people vote.

      1. True. But those numbers are probably even worse for Franken given the relative motivation of Republicans and Democrats this year. If you are an incumbent whose numbers are that bad with the general population, you better have one hell of a motivated base of support and an opponent with the opposite. That may happen, but is unlikely.

    2. John,

      That might have been me. I’d love to see Franken go, but I’d still bet he wins. No matter how terrible he is, so far the GOP here hasn’t found anyone at all to run against him.

      Given your past stated preferences, I’m guessing you are a big backer of Julie Ortman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julianne_Ortman). She’s been endorsed by Palin and has that “It is sweater weather here in Minnesota 9 months of the year, I’m sure I can hide these extra 20 lb.” body that you crave. The problem is that she is pretty unknown.

      You may be right. This might be a year where the vote is about Franken himself and it doesn’t matter who is running against him. I’m doubtful though. We are still a pretty bluish state.

      Remember we re-elected Amy Klobuchar who is just as bad as Franken in the last election.

      The link doesn’t go to any polling data for me.

      1. Time will tell. Clearly the Minnesota Dems have one hell of a fraud machine. So the Republicans will have to not just beat Frankin but beat him by a good margin to win.

        That said, most people vote against the incumbent rather than for the challenger. it is very rare for an incumbent to win without at least close to 50% of the voters thinking he deserves it. Forty percent is epically bad. Maybe the poll is an outlier and doesn’t represent reality. Franken better hope it is. If it is not, Franken is probably toast no matter who the Republicans run.

        And Kloocucher was re-elected in 2012. If the electorate in 14 looks like it did in 12, then a lot of Dems are going to win. That, however seems unlikely. It probably will look more like 2010 and that will be bad luck for Stewart Smalley that he was up for re-election two years too late.

        1. If the GOP were smart, they would really hammer home on the fact that Franken won by only a few hundred votes and that post election analysis showed that there was a lot of voting irregularities.

          It was also a 3-way race. And in all fairness the third party candidate probably pulled more from Coleman than Franken.

          I hope Franken loses. I’m just not convinced the local GOP can’t out stupid him.

          1. In the 2013 Virginia governor’s race at least, the Libertarian candidate pulled more votes from the Democrat than the Republican. Who is the third party going to be? Unless it is the God and Guns party, there is a decent chance a third party might hurt Fanken. There seems to be at least a small percentage of Progs who have enough self respect to cast a protest vote.

            1. I don’t think there will be a credible 3rd party candidate this time around.

              Last time it was Dean Barkley who ran for the Independence Party. That was the party that got started with Jesse Ventura’s run for gov.

              I think this time it will be pretty straight up Red vs. Blue.

    3. The patience of Protestant Scandinavians is inexhaustible. To a flaw.

      1. Yes, the Uffda ethos. No matter how horrible things get, you just shrug your shoulders and bemusedly say “uffda, that is quite the deal”. In ’98 when Gary Anderson’s field goal attempt went just wide, I’m sure a few of those Uffda’s were muttered with a bit – just a bit, though – of bitterness.

        It is a lot like fuck. How you say it implies a lot. But like I said, 90% of the time it is said pretty good naturedly. Takes a lot (like I’m talking Swede level shit here) to rile up a good norwegian lad.

        I was in the Marines and in MCRD San Diego before I realized that outsiders didn’t know what the word Uffda meant.


  42. The banner along the bottom of the screen read “Shooting at Ft. Hood Despite Gun Restrictions”


    1. Join the unarmed services and see the world!

      1. And see the hospital or the morgue.

  43. There has never been a mass shooting at a gun show. In fact, I don’t think I have ever heard of a shooting period.

    There have been a few negligent discharge injuries at gun shows, gleefully trumpeted by the hoplophobe media.

    1. But shouldn’t the guns be making people evil and turning every disagreement into a gun fight? That is what the media tells me will happen if we ever have universal carry.

      1. Yep. Just like the Wild West. Except that the Wild West was only like that in fiction. But gun grabbers never let reality get in the way of the narrative.

        1. Don’t bother them with your capitalist facts and logic. They have a narrative and that is what matters.


    The real losers in the McCutcheon case are the vast majority of average Americans without barrels of cash to dump on elections. Even the now-invalidated aggregate caps were extremely high, and only very few contributors ever reached them. In 2012, 1,715 donors gave the maximum to political party committees, and 591 gave the maximum to candidates.

    Thanks to Wednesday’s decision, the interests of the very few wealthiest Americans ? which differ significantly from those of most Americans ? will now get even more outsize consideration by legislators. As former Senator Alan Simpson testified in an earlier campaign-finance case, “Who, after all, can seriously contend that a $100,000 donation does not alter the way one thinks about ? and quite possibly votes on ? an issue?”

    Bogus reasoning is bogus.

    Even assuming there are no rich people with contrary opinions, a single dedicated wealthy contributor is unlikely(!) to be able to outspend millions of less wealthy people who disagree.

    1. Thanks to Wednesday’s decision, the interests of the very few wealthiest Americans ? which differ significantly from those of most Americans

      I think the average person’s interests coincides pretty closely with the interests of the evil rich person who employs him.

      It is amazing how they completely dehumanize their opponents. Rich people are not in the Times and their ilk’s view members of the community who can in any way share common goals or interests with the non rich. To the Times, the rich are some kind of parasitic species separate from actual human beings.

      Sick shit when you think about it.

  45. Alt-text: “Them’s dick-suckin lips!”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.